Messages

Rowling is a woman and a victim of domestic abuse. Of course she has a connection when her rights and those of her fellow women are being infringed upon.

A minor correction to my last post. The article is titled "How to Eat Out a Non-Op Trans woman".

Indeed.

The problem with that argument is that it assumes "trans rights" are being infringed upon in the first place and that a lot of these "rights" are based on the statement that "trans women are women" and that refusal to blindly accept that makes someone transphobic. Perhaps not insignificantly, most people shouting "trans women are women" tend to be men. Thanks for your input Daniel Radcliffe. This is even more ridiculous when you see someone like Starmer refuse to answer the question "what is a woman?"

Given we're a GAA discussion board, the main focus here is around sport. Saying trans women should not compete in women's sports is not a denial of their rights. The argument against it is backed by numerous credible sports scientists, e.g. Ross Tucker. Introducing "trans women are big and yes that might hurt someone playing rugby, but the numbers are so small it's irrelevant therefore it doesn't matter" into the discussion is a red herring. The issue is the principle and integrity of women's sport as a protected category. Lia Thomas, for example, winning NCAA titles competing as a woman denied women who haven't gone through male puberty the chance to be a national champion. That is simple, irrefutable fact. That statement does not deprive her of her rights to live her life whatever way she so chooses.

As far as the discussion around medicating kids with puberty blockers etc, anyone who genuinely argues in favour needs their head examined, as evidenced by the conclusions of the Cass report. Language around "the trans movement" is unhelpful as it's not as if there's some monolithic entity out there speaking for everyone, even if some organisations or individuals purport to. Hello Owen f**king Jones. However, there are undeniably organisations and individuals who appear to have a specific agenda when it comes to trans issues, e.g. the pushing of medically questionable practices such as "tucking" or advocating for parents of minors not to be informed of medical procedures they are undergoing. There was an infamous Vice article a few years ago with the title "How to go down on a trans woman" that interviewed several prominent trans "sexperts". It was littered with complete nonsense that in many cases was decried as medically unsafe. Calling out crap like this is, again, neither transphobic nor a denial of rights.

He shouldn't have went for that tackle but I still think he got the ball. The ball changed direction and I just don't see how it would have without that tackle touching the ball

Don't think he touched it at all, and if he did, he came through Dembélé's foot to do it.

To lose like that from two goals up is pathetic.

Araujo is excellent, so that was a moment of complete madness. Cancelo is and always has been an absolute moron.

From a movie perspective, the plot is not original though.

I watched Lincoln after I saw JFK. Terrible hammy writing at the end, assassinating a president like that! Been done years ago!

BBC making two more seasons of the terrific The Night Manager. Will be interesting to see what they come up with without any Le Carre source material.

I was at a wedding once where the couple met playing world of warcraft online.

In fairness to Dalot, yeah he let yerman get the wrong side of him, but he slipped, pure accident but penalty all the same.

You're letting him off the hook here. Pretty sure they gave the penalty in the end for Dalot clipping him with his right foot and this is what sent Madueke down. He got absolutely burnt for it. Dalot's tumble was subsequent to that and there was minimal further contact. Think that's what VAR was looking so closely at.

Absolutely nothing between the ears on her either. How on earth she's become a big hitter is beyond me. If David Simpson wasn't busy waving his pipe all over Upper Bann, I suspect he'd still be in Westminster and she'd still be a mid tier MLA that very few people paid any heed to.

Ironically, that was a much better United performance than the Brentford game.

Having conceded the penalty, United just froze. Chelsea had a 4/5 on one for the move that led to the corner before Sterling and Jackson managed to f**k it up. Palmer had been sitting in that spot for corners all night and they were miles off him. Just let him have a crack. Awful.

If you're 3 points up very late on in a game, you put the ball over the bar.

Toss a coin to decide direction of play. Youve played a whole match with that ref, deal with it.

You've had a whole match and extra time with the opposition team and that ref. Why should you keep playing?

Absolutely need to have seen part one.

Referees have been called back, at the next break in play, by umpires and linesmen to discuss off-the-ball incidents, since forever and a day. Some will act on their fellow official's advice and administer cards, some will not. But I don't yet think I've ever seen the previous passage of play cancelled as a result of the retrospective card / cards.

I think some people have been watching too much association football and its bizarre and erratic implementation of VAR, and gotten confused.

Nah, common sense really. Throw ball should be the next step at a minimum.

And what if from the resultant passage of play, a high ball goes in, two players challenge awkwardly, then get up off the floor and beat the reed out of each other in front of the referee?

Is it commonsense to ignore that passage of play too and just take the game back to a free for Derry where Fenton's lash out took place?

You can come up with as many obscure scenarios as you want, point is that it doesn't seem right that Dublin get the 45 after one of their players commits a foul that warranted a red card.

It might not "seem right" but then your issue is with the rules in this instance, not Conor Lane's application of them. You can't expect a ref to make up rules on the fly because you think the rule as is is shit. Take it up with congress.